This is a re-post of news as obtained by the free beacon news agency in Washington D.C

“The State Department has refused to cancel or delay the delivery of several American-made F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, claiming that the arms deal serves America’s “regional security interests,” according to an official State Department document obtained by the Free Beacon.

The news that the Obama administration would uphold an aid package to Egypt that included the military hardware prompted concern on Capitol Hill from lawmakers who said the deal was not prudent given the political situation in Egypt, where Muslim Brotherhood-backed President Mohammed Morsi has clashed with democratic protestors.

“Sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks are to be given to the Egyptian government before the end of the year under a foreign aid deal signed in 2010 with then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak,” Fox News reported Tuesday.

The State Department maintained in a January 8 letter to Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) that the arming of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood serves the U.S.’s “regional security interests.”

“Delaying or cancelling deliveries of the F-16 aircraft would undermine our efforts to address our regional security interests through a more capable Egyptian military and send a damaging and lasting signal to Egypt’s civilian and military leadership as we work toward a democratic transition in the key Middle Eastern State,” the State Department said.

“Egypt is a strategic partner with whom we have a long history of close political-military relations that have benefited U.S. interest,” said the letter, which was authored by assistant secretary for legislative affairs David Adams. “For the past 30 years the F-16 aircraft has been a key component of the relationship between the United States military and the Egyptian Armed Forces.”

“Maintaining this relationship and assisting with the professionalization and the building of the Egyptian Armed Forces’ capabilities to secure its borders is one of our key interests in the region,” Adams wrote.

“Egypt continues to play an important role in the regional peace and stability,” according to the letter. “In all of our engagements with President Morsi and his staff, they have reaffirmed Egypt’s commitment to its international agreements, including its peace treaty with Israel.”

“Egypt was instrumental in negotiating the Gaza ceasefire, and continues to work with the parties involved to implement it and secure a more lasting peace,” the letter states.

Morsi was recently criticized for calling Jews the “descendants of apes and pigs.”

Observers on Capitol Hill said that it is dangerous to arm an unstable Islamist regime.

One senior GOP aide familiar with the deal said he is ”incredulous that a country that doesn’t have peace and stability within itself is playing ‘an important role in regional peace and stability’ as this letter claims.”

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/update-113-u-s-to-give-muslim-brotherhood-lead-egypt-16-f-16s-200-tanks/feed/0lightingdarknessImageUpdate: Egypt’s New “Pharaoh”https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/update-egypts-new-pharaoh/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/update-egypts-new-pharaoh/#respondWed, 28 Nov 2012 03:37:48 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=301So far we have seen an uprising which caused a revolt. This revolt led to the overthrow of previous egyptian ruler Hosini Mubarak. Because of this overthrow a power vacuum was created which led to the now elected president Mohammed Morsi.

What is the latest as of 11/27/2012?

Egypt’s New “Pharaoh”

Mohammed Morsi, the Egyptian president, was accused of appointing himself as “Egypt’s new pharaoh” after he gave himself sweeping powers to oversee the country’s political transition in the wake of his success in negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza.

Mr Morsi declared unilaterally that until a new constitution is decreed all presidential decisions would be immune from legal challenge.

“The president can issue any decision or measure to protect the revolution,” said his statement, read out on television by his personal spokesman, Yasser Ali.

“The constitutional declarations, decisions and laws issued by the president are final and not subject to appeal.”

The announcement caused outrage. Mohammed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who returned to Egyptito become a leader of the liberal opposition, accused Mr Morsi of declaring himself a “new pharaoh”.

“Morsi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt’s new pharaoh,” Mr ElBaradei said on Twitter. “A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences.”

Egyptians Stage Massive Anti-Morsi Rally

Tens of thousands of people are staging a protest in the Egyptian capital against President Mohamed Morsi, who last week granted himself sweeping new powers.
“The people want the regime to fall,” the crowds chanted.

Protesters and riot police clashed in Cairo on Tuesday near Tahrir Square, the birthplace of the uprising that toppled former President Hosni Mubarak nearly two years ago.

Demonstrators are accusing President Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood of betraying last year’s revolution [AFP]

Lawyers left their syndicate chanting, “The people want the downfall of the regime,” – the signature chant of the protests that toppled Mubarak in February, 2011.

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/update-egypts-new-pharaoh/feed/0lightingdarknessMideast-Egypt_2224949bUpdate: The New Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood 6/2012https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/update-the-new-egypt-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-62012/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/update-the-new-egypt-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-62012/#respondSun, 24 Jun 2012 14:50:13 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=296In October 2011 I wrote about the religious violence in Egypt and the power vacuum that was created after the ousting of predsident Mubarak. I wrote that, “In the near future we may very well have a second Islamic State like Iran but in Egypt.”

It seems my predictions have come true. Here is what the news out of Cairo read today,

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi has officially won Egypt’s presidential election and will be the country’s next president, the electoral commission has announced.”

What does this mean for the Middle East and the relationship the U.S. and Israel will have with Egypt? Only time will tell but my guess is nothing good – especially for Israel.

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/update-the-new-egypt-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-62012/feed/0lightingdarknessThe New Testament Reliability Compared to Other Famous Ancient Workshttps://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/the-new-testament-reliability-compared-to-other-famous-ancient-works/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/the-new-testament-reliability-compared-to-other-famous-ancient-works/#respondFri, 18 May 2012 16:25:08 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=217Skeptical View of the New Testament Documents

I was on an online forum recently and a comment posted by a user caught my attention. This person wrote “You shouldn’t trust what the New Testament says because it is well known that we don’t have the originals! Therefore, how can we trust that it originally said what it says today?”

In other words what she is saying is:

One can only trust documents for which we have the originals

We do not have the original New Testament manuscripts

Therefore, we cannot trust the New Testament

Skeptical View of All Written History

Although it is no secret that we do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, it is naïve to assume that because we do not have the original documents we cannot trust what we read today. Why? Because by comparison we also do not have the original manuscripts of any other ancient work of literature. Let me say that again – we do not have the originals of any manuscript of any ancient work of literature. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Why is this an important fact to consider? Because if we ascribe the same scrutiny associated with the New Testament to that of other ancient works, we would be forced to conclude:

One can only trust documents for which we have the originals

We do not have originals of any ancient documents

Therefore, we cannot trust any ancient documents

Would we dare to say that we cannot trust at all the words written about Caesar? Plato? Aristotle? What about Homer’s Iliad? Should we abandon everything written down in our history textbooks because we do not have the originals? I sure hope not. Otherwise many people have wasted a lot of time and money reading, studying, and teaching historical events over the years.

Manuscript Evidence: New Testament vs. Famous Ancient Works

To start we must affirm that the question of authenticity for ancient texts is not really a religious concern at all; it’s an academic one that can be answered in an academic way totally unrelated to spiritual convictions by a simple appeal to the facts. For instance the science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity–not just religious texts–including historical and literary writings. It’s not a theological enterprise based on hopes and guesses; it’s a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules.

So what about the New Testament? How does it stack up against other ancient works of antiquity? It is known among contemporary scholarship that the manuscript evidence that gives us assurance that we have reliable copies of the Bible far outweighs the evidence for all other ancient writings combined!

Norman Geisler, Philosopher and Theologian wrote on this subject,“No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.”(1)

Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament studies at Princeton University, wrote that compared to the manuscript evidence of all other ancient writings “the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.”(2)In other words, the evidence is there and comparisons can be made to retrieve a very close proximity to the original text.

Dr. Benjamin Warfield, Former professor of theology at Princeton Seminary concluded from his study on the topic,“If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must…declare it marvelously exact.”

A Chart of Comparison

Below is a chart comparing the New Testament to 17 other famous works of antiquity. I compared qualities such as when is it believed that the originals were written compared to the earliest copy that we have to date. I compared the time span between the originals and the copies we have today. I also compared how many copies we have with each other which can be used to maintain proper translations.

In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 “variants.” This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind. But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so staggering as it may initially appear. Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.

To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99% hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as “Christ Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ”); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words. Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance – and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

In conclusion, if Biblical critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of other individuals such as listed above then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament’s reliability is far greater than the others. Furthermore, because of the abundance of early and independent manuscripts, critics are able to determine that the accuracy between the texts is at a very high degree. Is this sufficient enough for us to place our faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God? For some people the answer is no; no amount of “evidence” will convince them to believe. For others yes; it is easy to believe in the words written in the Bible. Why is that? How come some believe and some do not? Is it because some people are smarter than others? No not at all. It is because the Christian faith is not based on manuscript evidence or textual accuracy or any hard “evidence” for that matter. Rather it is by the grace of God that one comes to believe and by his grace alone. The Apostle Paul explains this when he wrote,

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” – Ephesians 2:8

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/the-new-testament-reliability-compared-to-other-famous-ancient-works/feed/0lightingdarknessEaster pt 2 – Eternal Life Through God’s Only Sonhttps://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/easter-pt-2-eternal-life-through-gods-only-son/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/easter-pt-2-eternal-life-through-gods-only-son/#respondFri, 06 Apr 2012 19:30:14 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=275Today in the world people are dying from war and acts of war. Some are starved, others are persecuted. Its not a matter of if this type of stuff happens, but why? Why does man continue to make “other man” suffer? Do you think that if man alone were able to end all of the sin and blood shed in the world we would have done it by now? It seems to me that war is the preferred method we use to bring so called peace. War is like a fist fight; when someone strikes you, you strike them back only with more force. Eventually you get attacked again and then you strike back! All of this unfolds until one side gives up and/or is completely destroyed. Sure a type of “peace” may come from it but the process of war itself is far from peaceful.

What are your thoughts on all of the war in the world? Is the stock piling of weapons and acts of war useful in bringing peace? It seems to me that the nature of politics makes that a difficult question to answer and public civilians are usually unaware or misinformed of who they are fighting against. They think they know why and who they are fighting but most of times they do not. They are told to hate an entire county yet personally they know of not one person living in that county. For instance I wonder if any Americans knew personally any one person that was incinerated by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan? Were those that perished the enemy? Were they responsible for WWII? Or were the few and their differences the cause of such destruction?

Please friends do not undermine the grip that sin has on the world. As I wrote in my previous post, Jesus had this to say in regards to sin,“Truly truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.”{1} Because we are slaves to sin, we need to be saved from sin. Only in God and his infinite wisdom and love for mankind may we find salvation from our sins.

So What Is God’s Plan to Save Humanity From Sin?

The over story of history written in the Scriptures teaches that starting with Adam and Eve, all have sinned therefore all will perish in sin. But don’t worry! God has a plan for us as prophesied through the greatest prophet of the Old Testament, Isaiah, nearly 700 years before the birth of Jesus. Let me repeat myself so that this can be fully appreciated – The words you are about to read were written almost a thousand years before Jesus and were well known by the time of his birth. Here is what Isaiah wrote:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The Spirit of the LORD [YHWH] will rest on him–

The Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,

The Spirit of counsel and of power,

The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD [YHWH].”

“He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

He was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. ”{3}{4}{5}

Fast forwarding through time we read what the last old testament prophet, John the Baptist, had to say regarding Jesus:

“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand;

Whoever obeys the Son has eternal life;

Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life,

but the wrath of God remains on him.”{6}

It seems clear that Jesus knew who he was when he said:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.

From now on you do know him and have seen him.” {7}

Following Jesus’s ministry, death, and resurrection, the apostle Paul had this to say:

“As one trespass led to the condemnation for all men,

so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

For as by the one mans disobedience the many were made sinners,

so by the one mans obedience the many will be made righteous.”{8}

In other words, Paul is saying that although sin was brought into the world by one man’s (Adams) sin, so by one man’s (Jesus) obedience and sacrifice we may not die but have eternal life. Death through Adam, life through the only sinless man and Son of God – Jesus.

Did you notice the exclusivity of the claims made by Jesus and his disciples? That Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven? This is a very dividing theological founding that many seem to frown at. One that apparently Oprah, of the Oprah Winfrey Show, seemed to dismiss when she said, “There are many paths to God. Literally millions of ways. It is like a mountain and it’s peak – We all are heading for the same destination, only we may take a different path.” {9} So at first glance, Jesus’s statement that he is “The Way” may seem offensive to those who place their faith in other cults and world religions. They may say how can Jesus say that he is the only way to God? How intolerant of Christians to believe that!

My reply? Read the Gospels of Jesus and study other world religions for yourself. When one does so with an open heart they will discover the context of who Jesus was and consider his impact upon the world against other spiritual leaders of the past. They will find that unlike any other:

Jesus lived mostly a solitary life

He was born of a virgin in less than sanitary conditions to a lowly Jewish family

He owned no house, no livestock, no possessions, and walked everywhere he went

Nothing about him was noble

It is written that Jesus performed many miraculous signs in a number of verified sources:

The lame walked

The sick were healed

The dead were raised.

He fed 5000 men once with only a few fish and loaves of bread

He demonstrated power over nature by commanding a raging storm to cease.

Jesus is the only man who claimed, and many believed, to be the only-begotten Son of God

He is the only man who claimed to have the divine authority to forgive sins and give eternal life

He is the only man in recorded history that claimed he would rise from the dead and backed it up.

In three short years of ministry, he turned an entire nation and empire upside down.

In three short years more is written about this one solitary man than any figure or king in history

He fulfilled prophecy

He came to save man

But at last he did not save

He was put to shameful death upon a cross

But claimed beforehand that he would rise again

His bones are still missing

Because he claimed he would come again….

Will you accept Jesus as your savior from sin? Would you like to get to know more about him and his mission? I challenge anyone that would consider him to take the 21 day challenge. Which is to pick up and read one chapter everyday from the Gospel of John until the 21st chapter (Takes about 10 minutes /day max). Afterwards reflect on what is said and answer this question: Who is Jesus?

Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-21

What is the meaning of Easter? Have you ever asked this question? The textbook Sunday school answer is that Easter is a celebration for when Jesus the Christ died for our sins. I remember hearing this as a young student but struggled to understand what it meant to say that he died for our sins. What is sin? And why would someone have to die for us to be saved from sin? In a more general sense, why should you or I care? Does this even concern us? These are honest questions and some that I have posed in the past .

Concerning “Easter” let us read what the apostle Paul wrote to a Jewish/Gentile Church in Rome:

“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”{1}

Sure Paul does not use the term “Easter” in his letter. But he is describing the death and resurrection of Jesus – called Easter. What he reveals in this letter is that by what Jesus did on the cross, as hard as it may be to comprehend, he did it to reconcile us with God. We are saved through him.

Sin and man – Every man and woman possess a sin nature that separates us from God. What is sin and how has it affected the history of mankind?

Justification – God is Holy, we are sinful. How then can we stand before a Holy God and be justified in sin?

Reconciliation – God is our Creator. We are his creation. Because our sin separates us from God – How then are we going to be able to be reconciled to him and receive eternal life with him?

Life After life – There are two places written in scripture that man travels after passing from this life: Eternal life with God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ or Eternal separation from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. These are the words of Jesus himself – not a “church” fabrication as some cults and religions would have you believe.

Sin and Man

If Jesus’s death on the cross was supposed to save us, what was he saving us from? We can learn this answer from a dialogue Jesus has with some Jews of that time:

“So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my words, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have learned from your father.”{2}

Slaves to Sin

Jesus was trying to present a clear message through to those that heard him. However initially he confused them when he said, “You will know the truth and the truth will set us free.” I think rightly the Jews asked him how they could be called slaves if they are slaves to no one? Jesus’s answer: “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin…if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Before we can seek to understand how the son could set us free, it would be helpful to get to know our enemy – Our sinful nature.

Know Thou Enemy – What is Sin? Sin is defined most accurately as ‘missing the mark’. The ‘mark’ being a type of holy perfection; the mark standard set by Holy God. A perfection not reachable by man alone. It is our sin that keeps us separate from the glory of God and from attaining true peace in this world. The Bible teaches that “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…For the wages of Sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”{3}{4}

Have you ever known a person that does everything right? A person who never commits wrong? What does modern culture tell us about sin?

Examples of Sin

It took me all of five minutes of searching the news to see the manifestation of sin in this world. Keep in mind, some may not believe in any religious figure or religion. Thats fine. These atrocities are independent of religion and universally acknowledged as heinous, or evil, crimes against humanity. (Note: These news stories were top stories at the time of this writing)

Murdered and Dismembered:Three Ohioans and two Michigan residents have been arrested in connection with an Ohio woman who police say was stabbed, suffocated and dismembered in a bathtub before some of her remains were taken to northern Kentucky.{5}

Gang Raped, Strangled, and Burned: Oksana Makar, the 18-year-old Ukrainian woman who was gang raped, nearly strangled, and set on fire, died today in the hospital, the Kyiv Post reports.{6}

Two Murders – One a Two Year Old Child:Suzanne Jones, 34, and her two-year-old son William were found dead at their home in Porthmadog, Gwynned, on Friday night. Police have said Mrs Jone’s husband and William’s father, David Wyn Jones, 42, has been charged with their murders.{7}

Dictators and Genocide:

Pol Pot –Contributed to the deaths of approximately 2 million people!

Adolf Hitler –Contributed to the deaths of approximately 6 million people!

Joseph Stalin –Contributed to the deaths of approximately 50 million people!

Other Quick facts:

Did you know that Germany was one of the best educated countries in the world at the time of the Holocaust?

Did you know that WWII was the bloodiest war in history? 60 million people were killed as a result of it which was over 2.5% of the world population at that time.

Every year approximately 15 million children die of hunger while for the price of one missile, it is estimated that a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years. I wonder how many children could have eaten at the cost of WWII?

It is easy to see that sin is very real and very present today. It wreaks pain and sadness beyond measure into the lives of countless persons. We hurt others or fail to help others in need. Sin is at the core of every man and is something that must be dealt with. Why? Because sin’s destruction has existed since the beginning (one can say since recorded history) and continues to permeate our lives in the present. I know that sin is hard to take in, discuss, and acknowledge. But it shouldn’t be and I will tell you why. Because around 2000 years ago, the one in the wilderness who prepared Israel for the birth of Jesus said, “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.”{8}

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/easter-pt-1-why-care/feed/0lightingdarknessThe Not Very Religious, Religious Scholarhttps://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/the-not-very-religious-religious-scholar/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/the-not-very-religious-religious-scholar/#commentsFri, 30 Mar 2012 21:37:33 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=208Before reading this post, it is of absolute importance to read what the Apostle Paul wrote concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Keep in mind that the vast majority of contemporary scholarship agree that Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians is one of the earliest and best attested historical writings we have concerning Jesus and his resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:1-7,13: “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

A few month ago I was reading through Scientific Magazine and notice a certain advertisement. The title of the advertisement read:

How Has Christianity Changed Over 2,000 Years?

Follow the Story of Lost Christianities, An Intriguing, 24-Lecture Series In Audio or DVD

This “Lost Christianities” lecture series is lead by New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman who, as the article states, is the James A.Gray Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Ehrman has received his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. From Princeton Theological Seminary and has written or edited more than 15 books on various religious topics.

At first glance it seems that Bart Ehrman is a smart religious fellow! He must be. He’s the department chair of religious studies at The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. He’s written 15 books. The article even says that he has a doctorate degree from Princeton Seminary. With a resume like his we should all assume that Dr. Ehrman is an intelligent religious scholar correct? Not so fast….

Dr. Ehrman is no doubt an intelligent man and a reputable scholar. But what he believes about the New Testament and God is quite a bit different than most so called “religious” persons. You see, one thing the article failed to mention about Dr. Ehrman is that he is a proclaimed agnostic. An agnostic is much different than a Christian or any religious person that believes in God. An agnostic is a person with the theological view that belief in God is not knowable. Rather than making a decision as to the existence or non existence of God they simply say, ‘I am not convinced therefore I do not know if God exists’.

Unfortunately, Dr. Ehrman’s non-belief perspective of God breaths massive implications into his individual field of study – i.e.how he views miracles, the Bible, Jesus, etc… For example he has said concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus:

“My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die — they sometimes think they see them in a vision,” Ehrman says. “I think some of the disciples had visions.”

Dr. Ehrman comes to his conclusions not solely based off of scriptural evidence. If he did, then no biblical historian would accept the writings concerning the post-mortem appearances of Jesus as true. In fact as a side note, there have been many scholars with equal or greater credentials than Ehrman who have been able to trust the resurrection appearances. While this is not a popularity contest it does at least allow for the possibility that he might be taking his doubts too far in the face of good evidence. Still what would cause Dr. Ehrman’s conclusions to differ so much from a historian that firmly believes in the resurrection appearances of Jesus? The reason is because Dr. Ehrman’s conclusions are not based off of the evidence alone but also off of the presuppositions he holds regarding the existence of God. It is his agnosticism perspective that guides his research. That since he does not hold a belief that God exists, than it follows logically that miracles can not occur. Dr. Ehrman writes,

“Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred.”1

Therefore in all of Dr. Ehrman studies and research however thorough he may be, any reference to a miracle occurring must be thrown out as not viable and not possible. This radically changes the way he views many of the events in the Bible thus how he teaches it. No God, no miracles, no belief in the Bible, no resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

About the Bible’s authenticity the Apostle Paul writes in 2 Timothy that, “All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”2

Scholar Dr. Ehrman, however, shares a different opinion:

“What if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contains human words? What if the Bible doesn’t give a fool proof answer to questions of the modern age – Western-style democracy, and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol – or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty?” 3

What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own? What if we figure out that the Bible is a false idol? These comments do not sound like those coming from the mouth of a very “religious” person. Not at all. In fact his words sound more like those from the mouth of a anti-religious person. This is supposed to be one of our esteemed educational leaders. A figure you can trust and turn too with questions regarding your studies of the faith. Indeed I wonder how many eyes he has turned blind to faith in Christ because of his lack of belief? Is that the role a religious educator should play? To bring doubt into the minds of those studying because he does not believe? Or should an educational leader serve the role of an objective source who provides both sides of the story so that the students can make up their own minds? I do not say this as an attack on Dr. Ehrman, not at all. However I call in to question the institution of Christian education itself. Let me explain further by introducing you to another influential writer, academic, and pastor.

Another example of a so called “religious” scholar is Dr. John Shelby Spong – partner of the famous “Jesus Seminar”. Dr. Spong, whose books have sold more than a million copies, was bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark for 24 years before his retirement in 2001. He is a visiting lecturer at Harvard and at universities and churches worldwide. His bestselling books include Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, A New Christianity for a New World, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and Here I Stand

Here is what Dr. Spong had to say regarding the resurrection of Jesus in a recent debate he had with prominent theologian and philosopher Dr. William Craig:

“The idea that it was a body that walked out of the tomb is not even an appealing idea to me. I don’t need for it to be physical. I find it rather amazing that religious people who talk about the life of the spirit discover that the spiritual things have no meaning unless they can be attached to physical symbols. And I’d like to suggest that spiritual is a word that is a lot bigger than that and one we ought not diminish by sort of hacking it because its not attached to some physical resuscitation.”

He goes on to say, “The idea that God would reverse the life process and do billions of individual miracles to bring back a body that has been dead for three days strikes me as to make God a kind of miracle worker. But I am so convinced of the reality of the experience that I keep looking for a way that I can open that experience into the common mind of people and they can walk into it.”

Dr. Spong said that the idea that it was a body that walked out of the tomb is not appealing to him. If the resurrection of Jesus is unappealing to Dr. Spong, than why is he trying so hard to convince others to share in his dissatisfaction? Should we base our beliefs of truth on Dr. Spong’s personal feelings? By no means! If we did, than we would all be guilty of viewing truth in a subjective manner and through the lens perspective of what others feel is truth – rather than following the evidence and discovering it for ourselves.

Dr. Spong also claims that by believing what the Apostle Paul wrote 2000 years ago we are diminishing the event of the resurrection. And that God must be some sort of miracle worker in order to bring Jesus back from the dead. I say the New Testament makes it very clear that God is The Miracle Worker! It says He created the entire Universe and everything in it. He breaths life into us. He healed the lame, the sick, and the blind. He is also responsible for raising Jesus from the dead. But why would Dr. Spong be so eager to reject the idea of the resurrection? I believe that Dr. Spong, like Dr. Ehrman, must hold some hidden assumptions or presuppositions for rejecting the truth of the New Testament. What does the Bible say about unbelief in the cross of Christ? “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 4

Lastly Dr. Spong claims the he is so convinced of the reality of the experience that he keeps looking for a way that he can open that experience into the common mind of people and they can walk into it. What does that even mean? He doesn’t even believe in the resurrection! So what experience is he referring to that he want to opens peoples minds too? It is to my understanding of Dr. Spong’s writings that his mission is to convince others of a very different Gospel than that which was handed to us by the earliest disciples. One example is that he claims that instead of Jesus’s body being raised into heaven, it was most likely thrown to dogs and eaten – leaving no body behind. Dr. Spong adds this and many other non-gospel variants to the story of Jesus. All because he does not find the truth of a resurrected Jesus Christ “appealing”.

Now I want to close by reminding the reader of what the Apostle Paul said, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” So how come we have religious teachers and preachers teaching a non-resurrected Christ? What is their purpose? What is their motive? If Jesus was not raised from the dead like Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Spong wantus to believe, than why did eleven of the twelve disciples endure torture and shameful death for their belief in a resurrected Christ? Without a risen Christ, how would one explain the drastic rise and spread of Christianity in a first century Jewish state? N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”5 But again if Jesus did not rise from the tomb, why do people 2000 years later accept Christ as a real experience and attend seminary school to become pastors and teachers of the Christian faith? Why do we bother waking up every Sunday morning to attend church services? Why pray and place our hope in a dead Jesus?

The Bible says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Therefore, let us [be aware of the detractors and] hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised this is faithful.” 6 So protect your heart and mind. Read the Bible for yourself. Learn to discern truth and believe! Peace and God bless.

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/the-not-very-religious-religious-scholar/feed/1lightingdarknessSometimes Rape and Murder Are Good Right?https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/sometimes-rape-and-murder-are-good-right/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/sometimes-rape-and-murder-are-good-right/#commentsMon, 05 Mar 2012 13:24:58 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=156Imagine a little child at recess who is playing ball with her friends. Quickly, a boy runs over to them and takes away their ball.

Upset by their misfortune the little girls run over to the monitor and cry out, “He took our ball! Thats not fair!”

The monitor witnessing the incident simply replies to them, “Don’t be upset little ones, the boy thought it was right to take your ball and so it is okay. Go ahead and play somewhere else”?

Was the monitor correct in her judgement to say that the little boy was perfectly fine to take their ball? I think most of us would say probably not. But why?

Every conscience person is born with a sense of right and wrong, good and bad – even if they do not follow them and/or are unaware of where they come from. This can be demonstrated in real life scenarios like above; where children are wronged on the preschool playground everyday despite being very young in age and knowledge.

Please consider the following scenarios in order to further illustrate this point.

Scenario 1

The country of Gambia in West Africa hosts a population of approximately 10 million people. Gambia differs in their perspective of customs and belief and some are controversial. Probably the most controversial practiced custom in Gambia involves the mandatory mutilation of the female genitals. Have you ever heard of this? Female genital mutilation (FGM) is defined by the World Health Organization as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” {1}

FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of “male” body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women’s libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly. {1}

Considering this as a reality in the world, would you say that it is okay to mutilate the genitals of little girls and women against their will?

Scenario 2

The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were “racially superior” and that the Jews, deemed “inferior,” were an alien threat to the German community. As part of their “final solution” to get rid of this inferior Jewish race, the Nazi’s exterminated approximately 6 million Jewish people along with other classes of peopled deemed unfit for the “New Germany”. This was a real event that happened in this century by, at the time, one of the most educated countries in the entire world.

Were those in power justified in the “cleansing” of an inferior race?

Scenario 3

A pack of lions are roaming the desert in search of a day time snack. Eventually the pack comes across a group of unsuspecting Zebras grazing in an open field. Licking their lips, the lions wait patiently for the correct time to make a move. Soon enough a lioness springs from the grass and begins its run toward a zebra. Scared for its life the zebra runs away and the chase begins between prey and predator. As is the case in the animal kingdom, the lioness eventually catches up with the zebra, kills it and the snack begins.

Now do you think it is wrong that the lion kills the zebra?

Scenario 4

One day an elderly lady finds herself at a crosswalk in a busy part of the city. She has a few grocery bags and cannot seem to cross the road easily because she needs the use of her walker to do so. A young passerby notices the woman and her struggles and wonders what he should do.

Do you think it would be good for him to go and help her cross the street?

Okay so now you may be wondering why I had you take the time to read and answer the above four scenarios. The reason is because each of them call upon the need for you to reflect upon them from a moral perspective. This is important because many times in life we are faced with decisions on how to act or how not to act. The question is, however, is it up to me to decide what is right or wrong? Or are some things in fact right and wrong? This contrasting view point is known as the difference between subjective and objective moral values. Lets define the two so that we know the difference between them more clearly.

Subjective morality, are statements of moral values and duties that are found within the physical framework of moral agents (human beings). In this way, they are dependent on what a human person (or persons) thinks or believes.

A morally subjective statement about a situation may be, “I felt it was right. I know it was right. Therefore, it is right. And just because it is bad for you does not mean it is bad for me.” Subjective morality also exists in group, or cultural mentality as is the case with the Nazi party where they thought it was right to do what they did.

Objective morality, on the other hand, are statements of moral values and duties that are found outside, or transcend, the moral agents. In this way, they are independent of what human persons think or believe.

An objective statement may go something like this, “Murder, rape, and torture are evil regardless of who believes that they are good. Furthermore love, self sacrifice, and kindness are really good regardless of who believes the opposite.”

I read once of an ethics professor who illustrated the difference between subjective and objective morality finely to his students on the first day of class. The professor would walk in to a packed stadium seated hall and ask this question, “By show of hands, who believes in subjective morality?” Most often more than half of the class would raise their hands.

The next thing the professor said was, “Well in that case this is how the grading for my class will go. If you are shorter than 5’8” you get an A. Unfortunately, however, if you are taller than 5’8” you get an F.” Right away a good number of the students understood the wise professor’s point. That if they really do believe in subjective morality, than it is up to the person (or persons) in power to decide what it right or wrong, even if they disagree with them.

Is morality subjective in this way?

Sure some things in life are subjective in nature like beauty, taste, the arts, etc… But are moral values and duties subjective? Well lets suppose Hitler accomplished his dreams and brainwashed every person in the world to think that murdering people as he did was good. Would it have been good? No and absolutely no. Murder, and especially genocide, is wrong! Most people do not need to be told this.

What about in the animal kingdom scenario? Are animals moral agents?

Cornell University Law School defines murder, “Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.”{2} The question would then be: When a lion attacks and eats a zebra, does it murder the zebra? Or does the lion kill the zebra? If it murders the zebra, than why do we not have a system of law prosecuting predator lions for killing zebras?

Ethicist Richard Taylor reflects:

“Such actions, though injurious to their victims, are no more unjust or immoral than they would be if done by one animal to another. A hawk that seizes a fish from the sea kills it, but does not murder it; and another hawk that seizes the fish from the talons of the first takes it, but does not steal it – for none of these things is forbidden.” {3}

This lack of morality can also be seen in the plant kingdom.

“It is clear that forced copulation occurs in a wide variety of species. It has even been suggested that some plants engage in forceful mating–the male plant tries anything possible to get its pollen around females’ barriers…” {4} This may seem like an awkward question but does this mean that plants rape each other? Probably not.

Our sense of morality is real and is unique from all of the animal and plant kingdoms of the world and deep down every person knows this. However, It is how we come to know these moral truths that separate us. For example:

One day a person says to another confidently that he believes the Sun goes around the earth while the other person believes that the Earth revolves around the Sun. In this case, because of the advancements in knowledge, we know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This means that those who believe otherwise, however sincerely and sure they may be, are in fact mistaken.

In this case coming to “know” that the earth revolves around the Sun is a matter of discovering truth. Not inventing it.

If you agree that there are objective moral values and duties than where do they come from? What is their foundation? In ethics, the question pertaining to this ontological foundation for moral values and duties is an open one. Why? Because on atheism, moral values cannot truly be objective if grounded somehow in nature. What about on theism? God has already given us his answer.

“So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.” – Genesis 1:27

I believe that God, as the epitome and loci of moral goodness and love, is the best explanation for the foundations of morality. This coincides with the belief that a person does not have to believe in God to be moral. For example there are many atheist persons in the world who do not believe in God and are genuinely nice and moral people. However, if the Bible is true, this fact fits right in line with reality. Why? Because God created both the theist (believers) and atheist (unbelievers) and therefore his moral law would be written on all of our hearts. God is not biased. The apostle Paul recognized this when writing about those who perish apart from God’s Law,

“…since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts.” – Romans 2:15

Hebrews 10:6 also says,

“I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

Without God, where could this moral foundation we experience be founded?

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins explains,

“There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” {5}

Why would Richard Dawkins say such a thing? Because he is right! On a naturalistic view of the world, we are just social bi-products of evolution by natural selection. We live here for a short time and die like the rest of humanity. There is no such thing as morality but rather it is an illusion much like free will.

Michael Ruse, an agnostic philosopher of science, adds:

“The position of the modern evolutionist is that morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” {6}

But why on a naturalistic worldview is it impossible to view morality in an objective way? The short answer would be that on a naturalistic view, nothing can exist apart from nature. Everything must be physically reducible and nothing can exist apart from the natural & physical world. This includes an objective God, moral values, etc…

I may go into this more deeply in another post but I hope that you have begun to see:

First, that objective moral values and duties do exist in reality

Second, that without God, objective moral values and duties could not exist

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/sometimes-rape-and-murder-are-good-right/feed/1lightingdarknessWrong is RightNazi MurderChristian Pastor in Iran Update 2/12https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/christian-pastor-in-iran-update-212/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/christian-pastor-in-iran-update-212/#respondWed, 22 Feb 2012 22:20:47 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=147I have been following this story for 8 months and it seems like it made another turn. Pastor Youcef has yet agreed to recant his faith in Jesus and has been issued a death sentence.

It begins with,”A trial court in Iran has issued its final verdict, ordering a Christian pastor to be put to death for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity, according to sources close to the pastor and his legal team.”

“Supporters fear Youcef Nadarkhani, a 34-year-old father of two who was arrested over two years ago on charges of apostasy, may now be executed at any time without prior warning, as death sentences in Iran may be carried out immediately or dragged out for years.”

It is both an honorable and biblical thing that pastor Youcef is doing in the name of our savior Jesus.

Jesus said,“…. but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” (Matt: 16:25)

Please continue to pray for pastor Youcef and his family. Jesus Christ be with them.

]]>https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/christian-pastor-in-iran-update-212/feed/0lightingdarknessOrigins of Life – Was Your Science Teacher Wrong?!?https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/origins-of-life-was-your-science-teacher-wrong/
https://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/origins-of-life-was-your-science-teacher-wrong/#commentsWed, 15 Feb 2012 16:25:11 +0000http://lightingdarkness.wordpress.com/?p=133I have always found intriguing the question: How did life begin to exist on earth? As a child I thought like most children and answered questions simply and without much thought or investigation. I thought that with God, all things are possible and life could easily be created by Him. It did not bother me to think this way because I was taught, as other Christians are, that life arose when God spoke it into existence. That, “In the beginning”…God created everything on earth. However as I progressed in school it became increasingly more difficult to accept the origin of life as an act of God because of what I was learning in my science textbooks. Instead of God creating life, I was being taught that life arose naturally through chemical processes. That on the very early earth existed a sea of chemicals and gases and after a period of time these chemicals combined via lightning and presto! We have the first life.

Charles Darwin himself speculated about this when he said in 1871 that in a “warm little pond of chemicals sunlight might have brought about the reactions necessary to produce the first living thing.”1 From then on, evolution by natural selection took over and all the life forms on earth developed slowly.

Could this be true I thought? Was God the creator of all life like it states in the Bible? Or is the real explanation of how life arose due to chemicals and random chance like my textbook read? The theological implications of a random chance origin of life is damaging to the faith and worth noting.

For instance, I have talked to many students and read papers from other Christians scientists that admit that the findings in science pertaining to the origin of life and subsequent evolution lead them far away from their faith. They thought that since God did not create life, than God must be out of a job.

Scholar Patrick Glynn described his path to atheism this way,

“I embraced skepticism at an early age, when I first learned of Darwin’s theory of evolution in, of all places, Catholic grade school. It immediately occurred to me that either Darwin’s theory was true or the creation story in the book of Genesis was true. They could not both be true, and I stood up in class and told the poor nun as much. Thus began a long odyssey away from the devout religious belief and practice that had marked my childhood toward an increasingly secular and rationalistic outlook.”2

I would agree with Glynn’s statement to an extent. That if the Bible teaches us that God created life and we find the opposite, I would find it difficult to trust the Bible with other events. In other words, if we discover a naturalistic explanation for the origins of life that does not involve the creative powers of a divine being, than why does the Bible say that God is our Creator?

In this post I will discuss briefly one reason why I maintain my belief that there is no naturalistic or scientific explanation of the origins of life despite what I learned in school. I encourage all Christian parents to discuss this with their children BEFORE they learn it in school so that they may have their minds and hearts prepared when challenged.

As Solomon the wise king wrote for us in Ecclesiastes 12:1,

“Remember your Creator

in the days of your youth,

before the days of trouble come…”

BIOLOGY 101 – Quick overview of Life vs. Non-Life

First we should discuss what differentiates a non-living thing (or inorganic matter) from a living thing (or organic matter)?

These are very complex operations that are required for an organism to be able to eat, move, reproduce, and survive through generations. However, before a living organism can perform these complex operations, a certain level of chemical complexity must be present.

Chemically speaking we are taught, like many students in organic chemistry, that all life forms on this planet contain the element Carbon. Carbon plays a key role in life because it links together other elements (like Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen) to form large and complex molecules called organic compounds.

Some examples of these complex organic compounds found in living systems are carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. These 4 compounds are absolutely essential in the formation and maintenance of life forms on Earth.

How did non-life become life?

Now we know some of the essential elements that are needed for the formation of life but how did it come together to become life?

I was taught in high school and college that the primitive Earth was covered with pools of chemicals and had an atmosphere that was conducive to the formation of life. With energy supplied by lighting, chemicals in this “primordial soup” over a period of billions of years linked together and simple life forms emerged. From there, evolution took over.

But what evidence do scientists have to back up this claim?

Here is where I would like to talk about the famous experiment that was conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952. This experiment, known as the Harold-Urey experiment, attempted to prove that with the right conditions and enough time, non-life could produce life. How?

Miller took gases which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth’s atmosphere and put them into a closed system pictured below.

First Miller combined the gases methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O) in the glass bulb.

Next he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth.

Lastly he collected the water droplets and ran an analysis of the experiment by a process of chromatography.

Results: At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. 2% of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller’s experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth.3

Chemist William Day said, “the experiment showed that this first step in the creation of life was not a chance event, but it was inevitable.”4

Astronomer Harlow Sharpley said Miller had proven that “the appearance of life is essentially an automatic biochemical development that comes along naturally when physical conditions are right.”5

It seems as if this were an open and shut case to the origins of life. But is it really?

In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right,

until someone comes forward and cross-examines. – Proverbs 18:17

In our culture, only one side is given the opportunity to speak in public schools. Hence, everyone thinks that experiments like the one above are compelling. But once the cross examination begins, the story begins to look a little different. Now begins the cross examination….

Stanley Miller has been quoted saying of his own work on the origins of life that,

“The problem of the origin of life has become much more difficult that I, and most other people, envisioned.”6

Problems With the Miller-Urey Experiments

1) The experiment used the WRONG gases

The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to simulate the early earth atmosphere by using the gases methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). The problem with this, however, is that there is a substantial and growing body of criticism that shows that these type of experiments fail to plausibly reproduce conditions on an early earth. Senior research scientist at NASA wrote in a published article that, “In fact a consensus has developed since the late 1970’s that the early earth’s atmosphere never contained significant amounts of ammonia, carbon dioxide and water vapor.”7

For instance, methane was one of the gases Miller used and the only source of energy that was added was electricity to simulate lighting. But what about the other energy sources present during that time like ultra violent radiation? “Methane subjected to UV radiation would have been converted to higher-molecular weight hydrocarbons, forming an oil slick up to ten meters deep.” 8 There is just no way that life could naturally develop under such conditions.

2) No evidence for the primordial soup

Although scientists in their different fields debate what their thoughts are of an early earth, not one solid piece of evidence has ever been put fourth to conclude that there even was a “primordial soup”. I think it is more proper to say that we just don’t know what the early earth looked like and continue our search instead of running with assumptions. Especially when dealing with an issue that runs as deep as this one.

3) Life Was NOT Produced In the Miller-Urey Experiment

The third problem with this experiment is that life was not produced! Amino acid were. From what we know today about molecular genetics and the cell, the formation of a few amino acids is light years away from forming life. Its not even in the same galaxy. For example if I put forth a brick and said, “Look!! I now have everything I need to build the White House!” You may think I am insane. Why? Because we all know that it takes much more than just one brick to make the White House. It takes a blue print (like DNA), many intelligent minds, physical labor, and many many more bricks. For instance, a typical single protein is made up of a chain of 445 left-handed amino acids and scientists estimate that 238 proteins would be the absolute minimum number that would be needed to form life. By these numbers it would take one hundred and six thousand left-handed amino acids perfectly arranged to make a single cell. Coppedge, in his book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible, makes several probability calculations concerning life coming about by chance. Giving evolution all kinds of concessions, he comes up with the probability for the first cell to evolve by accident as one chance in 10^29345. It would take an 80-page book just to print that number! In comparison, the number of inches across the known universe is 10^28.

4) The Experiment Was Designed!

The last thing about this experiment that I would like to point out is that IT WAS DESIGNED!! It not only took the presences of the various physical chemicals but the presence of an agent or mind that caused the experiment to occur. Without the scientists, no experiment and no amino acids. This hardly represents a blind random chance origin as predicted by some scientists. In fact, if someone were to tell me in the future that scientists had made life in a lab and asked me if that shook my faith, I would probably respond by saying that the experiment proves my point and not theirs. That it takes simple intelligence to create simple life and supreme intelligence to create all life as God did.

“For the foolishness of God

is wiser than man’s wisdom…”

1 Corinthians 1:25

We have seen thus far why Miller made the statement that, “the problem of the origin of life has become much more difficult that I, and most other people, envisioned.”

Others have also commented on the present state of origin of life research:

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA wrote, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”9

Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist, shares his disillusionment:

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”10

The late Robert Sharpio, skeptic and former professor emeritus at NYU, argues strongly that

“All current theories are bankrupt and that we need to find a new and more fruitful paradigm to guide our search for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.” 11

As we have seen in our brief discovery it is very clear that we are not as certain about the origins of life as our science textbooks lead us to believe. This is only one example of how students can be easily mislead down a road of misinformation if we do not sit down and discuss these topics with them. In doing so we may in fact re-affirm what we have always thought, that with God all things are made and sustained. My question is, what other scientific discoveries or theories are our kids learning that as Sharpio put it, “are currently bankrupt”?